Vehicles will change, but waves will still appeal
I will add my voice to those upset with Mayor Lisa Helps and city council proposing to significantly reduce the number of car parking spots at Clover Point.
No one is mentioning this fact: the car is not going away! Cars are changing, for sure, and there will be more electric cars, small two-seater cars, and cars that are voice-activated and driverless.
There will be able-bodied and differently abled individuals of all ages saying this to their auto: “Take me to Clover Point to see the crashing waves.”
Catharine Dewar
Saanich
Can’t use Beacon Hill, worried about Clover
Recently my husband and I bought lunch from the Beacon Drive-In and tried to go to the lookout at Beacon Hill Park, but unfortunately it was closed.
There was no longer any snow, but the gate was closed to cars. I suggested we carry on to Dallas Road and look for a spot with a view. We found only about eight spots with a view facing the water and this was a Wednesday at 1:15 p.m. Imagine what the availability would be on a busy day!
With the changes proposed to Clover Point, my husband would require handicap parking with no hills.
The only views of kiteboarding are to the east. I suggested to my husband that backing in a parking stall may give us a view if we could find a spot.
I wonder how long it will take the city to put up signs “No Back In Parking” so they can say after they review again that no handicap people are using the spots and, therefore, parking is not required.
Eileen Cannon
Victoria
Community plan is the foundation
It is with deep concern that I read Lindsay Kines’ article about the attempt by some on Saanich council to fast-track large development proposals.
It would appear that some have been swayed by the false arguments that various ill-defined crises provide the excuse to become unmoored from previous development application procedures.
The proposal for a massive development in the Royal Oak neighbourhood is the most obvious example. In its desire to fast-track the non-conforming project, the council is ignoring the official community plan, which was developed through an open and collaborative process.
To dismiss the plan as being out of date, and only one among many considerations, is to misrepresent the nature of the plan. It is the foundation document upon which the other plans rest.
The notion that every decision on high- density proposals is relative, and depends on the circumstances at the time, leads to ad hoc and unprincipled decision-making.
Instead of standards, every proposal becomes subject to freelance negotiations. In this model there is no accountability, and no ability to reject a future development proposal once the community plans are made meaningless.
Richard McCandless
Saanich
Application made, but no money arrived
On Dec. 19 I made an online application for the B.C. Recovery Benefit on behalf of my wife and myself. I received an email confirmation the same day.
As I write this, the benefit has not been deposited to our bank account. I have not been contacted by the B.C. Recovery Benefit Team for further information.
I have tried, unsuccessfully, to obtain information about my application by telephone and email from the B.C. Recovery Team and the Minister of Finance office.
I am concerned that there has possibly been a fraudulent theft of the benefit, similar to that which occurred on Ontario.
Has anyone else had this experience?
David Heard
Mill Bay
Maternity benefits should be fair
What has bothered me, since qualifying for the maximum maternity benefit with my first child, is how profoundly unfair it is to tie maternity benefits to income.
We learned this year with the CERB what a difference a reasonable basic income can make for unemployed people and their families. Why not apply the same learnings to maternity leave?
Currently, a professional earning over $55,000 a year (as I did) receives about $2,000 a month after taxes while caring for her baby, while a woman who did her best to earn $36,000 receives only about $1,000 a month for her labour.
It’s the same important job — caring for an infant — so why do women who have earned more, get paid more to do it?
The argument for tying maternity benefits to income is that, otherwise, women will somehow be incentivized to have children, and de-incentivized to work.
That’s the same classist and misogynist theory that gave us the false stereotype of the welfare queen.
Our government talks a lot about reducing child poverty, and how much the Canada Child Benefit has helped. But the fact is, women’s incomes are most vulnerable during the postpartum and early-childhood period.
So let’s support all families, and show that we as a county value the labour of infant care — no matter who’s doing the labour.
Let’s pay all caregivers who qualify for maternity benefits the maximum amount for their labour and time out from the workforce — no matter their class or previous income.
Danielle Leduc McQueen
Victoria
Horgan will get the last laugh on Site C
A recent newspaper article states the obvious but buries at least one nugget among its rampant, 20:20 hindsight — namely, the low cost of power that the project will ultimately deliver. No bulk electric power is cheaper than that delivered by water running downhill.
News of the distant future is that excess power from Site C will be sold to adjacent jurisdictions at profit to benefit B.C. residents in the day.
Rolling over in his grave by that time, Premier John Horgan will have the last laugh as Site C generates power well beyond its 70-year amortization.
The $10 billion spent so far is largely the price of determining the geotechnical obstacles to completion; it would be sheer lunacy to abandon the project now and get nothing for it.
Hurrah for Horgan for having the guts and wisdom to proceed!
Robert Popple
Nanoose Bay
We need NDP MLAs to speak out on Site C
Premier John Horgan’s decision to proceed with the Site C dam at a cost of $16 billion and counting is wrong on every level. It’s bad for the environment and food security. It violates Indigenous treaty rights. It’s unnecessary, unsafe, and financially reckless.
Site C will destroy farmland and wilderness at a time when we desperately need the enormous potential of the Peace River Valley to support long-term food security and to mitigate the effects of climate change and environmental degradation.
Hydro megaprojects like Site C are not clean and not green. They suck up investment that should be diverted to renewables such as geothermal, solar, and wind, whose costs continue to go down.
Even if we ignore the overwhelming social, cultural and environmental costs, Site C will have a devastating economic impact — it’s a textbook example of the sunk cost fallacy (better known as throwing good money after bad).
The site’s geological instability creates significant safety risks, and costs will inevitably continue to skyrocket, with B.C. ratepayers and taxpayers paying the price.
Despite the many reasons, both pragmatic and ethical, to cancel Site C, Horgan stubbornly insists on proceeding with the project, while still blaming the previous Liberal government for starting the whole mess in the first place.
What is truly disheartening is that not one NDP MLA has shown the courage to buck party discipline by speaking out against this boondoggle.
Maureen Woodall
Victoria
Peace River dams will be needed
British Columbians have enjoyed low electrical power rates since the first dams were completed on the Peace River in the 1960s — and, because there was power in excess of our immediate needs, B.C. was able to sell much of the excess power to other provinces and U.S. power companies.
Over the years, we have increased our dependence on electrical power as the population grew and our dependence on domestic electrical appliances and commercial processes also accelerated.
A relatively new dependence on electrical power is currently being experienced which will outdo everything we have seen in the past — electric automobiles.
Without “homegrown” electrical power, we will be competing with the rest of North America for power and paying considerably more for every kilowatt we use in homes, industrial processes and electric vehicles, even our ferry system.
John W. Smith
Nanaimo
I’d rather have the stronger dose
While plaudits are due to our officials working feverishly to enable us all to get vaccinated as soon as possible, I am concerned with the latest vaccine approved — AstraZeneca, to wit, its 62 per cent efficacy rating, versus 90 per cent or more for its predecessors, Pfizer and Moderna.
So when it comes time for this 55-plus-year-old to get jabbed — hopefully before the leaves begin to fall — I’m wondering: do I have a choice of vaccines here?
If you were hiring a student straight out of college in a job relating to his/her degree of study, would you be more comfortable with the one who averaged 95 per cent in his/her curriculum, or another who scraped by with a 62 per cent average?
Will this become a case of Spin the Vaccine Bottle (err…Vial)? Shudder.
Mark Cunningham
Victoria
SEND US YOUR LETTERS
• Email letters to: letters@timescolonist.com
• Mail: Letters to the editor, Times Colonist, 201-655 Tyee Rd., Victoria, B.C. V9A 6X5
• Submissions should be no more than 250 words; subject to editing for length and clarity. Provide your contact information; it will not be published.
